The author offers a new descriptive explanation of the Beaker phenomenon, by focusing on Mediterranean France and making reference to the Greek influx in the same area 2000 years later. In the Iron Age, the influence began with an exploratory phase, and then went on to create new settlements and colonise new areas away from the coast. The Beaker analogy is striking, with phases of exploration and implantation and acculturation, but adjusted to include a final phase where Beaker practice was more independent. Comparing the numerous models put forward to explain it, the author shows that immigration and a cultural package are both aspects of the Beaker phenomenon.

[The full text is available to those who have access to my Mini-Library]

The papers in this anthology provide an up-to-date survey of trends in Bell Beaker research, with a focus on western and northern Europe, as well as developments in the northern and eastern Scandinavian and Baltic regions.

Table of Contents

Preface (Christopher Prescott and Håkon Glørstad)1. Introduction: becoming European (Christopher Prescott and Håkon Glørstad)2. Personhoods for Europe: the archaeological construction and deconstruction of European-ness (Herdis Hølleland)3. Demography and mobility in North-Western Europe during the third millennium cal. BC (Marc Vander Linden)4. Perceiving changes in the third millennium BC in Europe through pottery: Galicia, Brittany and Denmark as examples (M. Pilar Prieto-Martínez)5. Body use transformations: socio-political changes in the Bell Beaker context (Lucía Moragón)6. Late Neolithic Expansion to Norway. The beginning of a 4000 year-old shipbuilding tradition (Einar Østmo)7. Towards a new understanding of Late Neolithic Norway – the role of metal and metal working (Lene Melheim)8. Historical ideal types and the transition to the Late Neolithic in South Norway (Håkon Glørstad)9. The last hunter-fishers of western Norway (Knut Andreas Bergsvik)10. Third millennium transformations in Norway: modeling an interpretative platform (Christopher Prescott)11. Technology Talks: Material Diversity and Change in Northern Norway 3000–1000 BC (Marianne Skandfer)12. Cultural Reproduction from Late Stone Age to Early Metal Age – a short discussion of the cultures in Finland, the northern part of Fennoscandia and Karelia, 3200 cal BC to 1500 cal BC (Mika Lavento)13. Tracing Pressure-Flaked Arrowheads in Europe (Jan Apel)14. The Bronze Age expansion of Indo-European languages: an archaeological model (Kristian Kristiansen)

Out of the 3 phases the paper suggests, the second phase mentioned influences from the east in places like Italy, Switzerland, and the northern Balkans. This seems like better support for a large movement of R1b.

Speculating with R1b as carried by the Beakers, I see something similiar to this. The early phase suggests mostly a continuation of the late neolithic with perhaps some small-scale interactions with incoming "Beaker" pioneers or traders. The first phase may have carried the first R1b's into Iberia, but they would still have been few in number. I suspect lactase persistence was more common in the second or third phase when the bulk of the R1b arrived.

1. The typical pattern of exploration followed by colonization.2. Direction of flow, which in this case reflects a political shift.

Southern France is just part of the overall picture and not an important one in Phase One. It had no copper. The copper sources of Iberia seem to have been the big attraction, with significant settlements there. From previous work by Lemercier and others, I suggested that the primary trail out to Iberia was via Corsica and Sardinia, but one of the routes back to the Carpathian Basin was along the coast to Southern France and from there to the Alps.

Then we have the political shift. The power centre affecting S France initially was in Portugal. Once the people coming up the other route to central Europe (marked in black on my map) became entrenched in power centres north of the Alps, they took control of the trade routes between there and the Mediterranean. That shift can be dated pretty closely at Sion to c. 2,425 BC.

Then we have the political shift. The power centre affecting S France initially was in Portugal. Once the people coming up the other route to central Europe (marked in black on my map) became entrenched in power centres north of the Alps, they took control of the trade routes between there and the Mediterranean. That shift can be dated pretty closely at Sion to c. 2,425 BC.

I don't know R1a distribution patterns. Is there any chance these people that changed things at Sion included a lot of R1a people? We know Klyosov's theory that R1a taught R1b IE languages. Could that have happened here?

Then we have the political shift. The power centre affecting S France initially was in Portugal. Once the people coming up the other route to central Europe (marked in black on my map) became entrenched in power centres north of the Alps, they took control of the trade routes between there and the Mediterranean. That shift can be dated pretty closely at Sion to c. 2,425 BC.

I don't know R1a distribution patterns. Is there any chance these people that changed things at Sion included a lot of R1a people? We know Klyosov's theory that R1a taught R1b IE languages. Could that have happened here?

Mike, the probability is close to zero. Underhill 2009 has R1a in southern Switzerland at 0% and the FTDNA R1a project has exactly zero samples from southern and SW Switzerland.

Underhill has very small amounts of R1a in NW Switzerland (3.7%) and in NE Switzerland (6.3%). Not surprisingly, all FTDNA R1a project samples from Switzerland have German names and are from German speaking areas of Switzerland (zero from French speaking areas, zero from Italian speaking areas).

Klyosov's dreams of R1a grandeur in western Europe remain just that, dreams.

Is there any chance these people that changed things at Sion included a lot of R1a people?

What do you think? :)

Bell Beaker coincides with the distribution of R1b. We are just talking about different strands of same. Or at least I'm assuming from present-day distributions that the people who changed things at Sion were L21+, while the ones who settled in Iberia were L21-.

I've been looking at Rich Rocca's work on DF27 with great interest, now that I've got a bit of time to catch up with all these exciting discoveries, and wondering if that mutation happened in Iberia and spread back into Central Europe from there.

From looking at the R1a1a project, R1a is clustered around Slavic speaking countries where it is expected. R1b looks to have been IE-ized in the Balkans or the Hungarian plain, before they may have arrived at Sion or the west in general.

I've been looking at Rich Rocca's work on DF27 with great interest, now that I've got a bit of time to catch up with all these exciting discoveries, and wondering if that mutation happened in Iberia and spread back into Central Europe from there.

I forgot that I had the abstracts for the papers in Christopher Prescott and Hakon Glorstad (eds), Becoming European: The Transformation of Third Millennium Northern and Western Europe (2011) from when they were presented to the 2008 EAA Conference. I have uploaded the pdf to the Mini-Library. I will just pick out one here:

THE BEAKER CULTURE AND BRONZE AGE BEGINNINGS ALONG THE NORWEGIAN COAST; SO MUCH SO FAST Christopher Prescott, Institute of Archaeology, University of Oslo, Norway

The Late Neolithic (the LN,2350-1750 BC) in Norway can be regarded as the initiation of the Bronze Age in southern and coastal Norway. LN-developments were probably sparked by Beaker influences, conceivably also migration, from northern Jutland in Denmark to Lista and Jæren in Southern Norway, and are thus part of wider southern Scandinavian development around the Battle Axe Period to LN Beaker transition.

From these geographically and chronologically restricted beginnings, early LN technology, modes of production and culture quickly spread throughout southern and coastal replacing older social, cultural and production forms, and redefining a historical trajectory. Spreading perhaps as far as 1000 km from the Beaker areas in Lista and Rogaland, the speed in which these wide-reaching and dramatic changes took place is equally remarkable, perhaps taking place within a generation.

Bell Beaker coincides with the distribution of R1b. We are just talking about different strands of same. Or at least I'm assuming from present-day distributions that the people who changed things at Sion were L21+, while the ones who settled in Iberia were L21-.

I'd love to have any Y-DNA from a Bell Beaker site! So far the concentration has been on getting mtDNA out of ancient remains, because there is a much better chance of that than Y-DNA. If you take a look at my table of Ancient Western Eurasian DNA, you will see how pitifully little Y-DNA we have from any period anywhere.

Some things are gradually emerging from the pattern. Bernard Secher posted on his new blog a few days ago on three papers that have synthesized the results from ancient mtDNA. His text is in French, but the figures are in English and speak for themselves.

Some big studies of ancient DNA are under way, so let's keep our fingers crossed that some Y-DNA comes out of those.

The 2004 paper by Lemercier, cited by Alan T.H. about five posts up, refers to quite a number of Bell Beaker sites in SE France, many from cave burials, that had "remains." See e.g. the second paragraph of 1.1, and the first of 2.1. If the translator (or the French original) meant the same thing we do by "remains," that should be a fruitful source of something to try to analyze. Testing ancient Y-DNA still seems to be quite expensive, last I heard (which would have been in regard to Ötzi, King Tut, and some from SE England studied by Wessex Archaeology).

There are two statements in this paper that seem to me especially interesting. One, with respect to the famous beakers themselves, is in 1.1: "We still do not know where they were produced, as we are waiting for more abundant analysis." Whether that is still the case ten years later, I don't know; but in 2002 at least, the very widespread attribution of these ceramics (and by extension, the origin of the cultural complex) to Portugal seems to have been based on radiocarbon dating of the oldest sites in which they had been found deposited -- not sites of their manufacture.

A second provocative statement is in 1.2: "Even if all the non-funeral sites cannot be considered as strictly domestic sites, they represent more than two thirds of the recorded sites, contrary to what is known for the other areas. Thus we can assume that the Bell Beaker culture is not a funeral phenomenon, even if there are Bell Beaker elements in the graves, in almost a hundred graves." And he cites a then-unpublished study by himself and others, L'origine du groupe "barbelé"... L'hypothèse Italique. Which, in itself, sounds pretty interesting.

Read through all of the recent beaker papers in Jean's library (cheers Jean). Hard going with my basic French at times but very interesting. It does seem that we could be slowly heading towards a point where different beaker groups and phases might be associated with different clades. The correlation between beakers and high R1b was spotted many years ago and with the dating currently suggested by the variance it is clearly the front runner.

Its clear that while Iberia is strongly believe to be the origin of the basic beaker proto-package. Whether L11 took of from there is another matter. If it did there is a heck of a leap geographically between Iberia and the main concentration of high variance upstream of L11 populations in Asia Minor etc. I suppose we are left with either some sort of maritime leap along the Med. to Iberia or some sort of meeting of non-R1b Iberian beaker influences with R1b elements somewhere in central Europe (who had come from further east) followed by a secondary take off of these beakerised people.

I personally dont think the answer is clear and I await recalculations of variance of p312 in Iberia and elsewhere as what was p312* until recently resolves into clades. I am pretty facinated by RR's work that seems to be showing that most of Iberian p312* is resolving into one superclade marked by a new SNP just upstream of Z196. Its striking how much Iberian p312 descends from this one line marked by this new SNP. If Z196 is already thought old then maybe it is the oldest SNP-defined section of p312, despite earlier calculations of variance just based on

I am also mindful that there must be a rump p312* that is negative for this new SNP and lies on lines leading to U152 and L21. The location of 'true' P312* (negative for this new SNP above Z196) will be very enlightening in terms of the origins of L21 and U152 too and I cant wait for this to start to be tested on p312* across Europe. It seems to me that genetics is more likely to solve the beaker origin problem than archaeology.

Read through all of the recent beaker papers in Jean's library (cheers Jean). Hard going with my basic French at times but very interesting. It does seem that we could be slowly heading towards a point where different beaker groups and phases might be associated with different clades. The correlation between beakers and high R1b was spotted many years ago and with the dating currently suggested by the variance it is clearly the front runner.

Its clear that while Iberia is strongly believe to be the origin of the basic beaker proto-package. Whether L11 took of from there is another matter. If it did there is a heck of a leap geographically between Iberia and the main concentration of high variance upstream of L11 populations in Asia Minor etc. I suppose we are left with either some sort of maritime leap along the Med. to Iberia or some sort of meeting of non-R1b Iberian beaker influences with R1b elements somewhere in central Europe (who had come from further east) followed by a secondary take off of these beakerised people.

I personally dont think the answer is clear and I await recalculations of variance of p312 in Iberia and elsewhere as what was p312* until recently resolves into clades. I am pretty facinated by RR's work that seems to be showing that most of Iberian p312* is resolving into one superclade marked by a new SNP just upstream of Z196. Its striking how much Iberian p312 descends from this one line marked by this new SNP. If Z196 is already thought old then maybe it is the oldest SNP-defined section of p312, despite earlier calculations of variance just based on

I am also mindful that there must be a rump p312* that is negative for this new SNP and lies on lines leading to U152 and L21. The location of 'true' P312* (negative for this new SNP above Z196) will be very enlightening in terms of the origins of L21 and U152 too and I cant wait for this to start to be tested on p312* across Europe. It seems to me that genetics is more likely to solve the beaker origin problem than archaeology.

So far, U152* (xL2-,Z36-,Z56-) has been found almost entirely in German or Swiss-German samples. It would be very interesting to see what all of the remaining French and Belgian P312* turn out to be.

I suppose we are left with either some sort of maritime leap along the Med. to Iberia or some sort of meeting of non-R1b Iberian beaker influences with R1b elements somewhere in central Europe

I agree, except that there's another side of the European peninsula that gets very little attention. The Dover Boat, and various aspects of the tin and amber trades, hint at the use of this other route, by those inclined to maritime leaping. As distinguished from herding and plowing their way across. Whether this was done by DF27 guys, I don't know; but it was done in the time frame under discussion, and not just via the Mediterranean and two or three of the biggest rivers.

Quote

It seems to me that genetics is more likely to solve the beaker origin problem than archaeology.

I kind of agree with that, too... only, if we keep chatting, maybe it can be solved in an interdisciplinary fashion.

I'd love to have any Y-DNA from a Bell Beaker site! So far the concentration has been on getting mtDNA out of ancient remains, because there is a much better chance of that than Y-DNA. If you take a look at my table of Ancient Western Eurasian DNA, you will see how pitifully little Y-DNA we have from any period anywhere.

Some things are gradually emerging from the pattern. Bernard Secher posted on his new blog a few days ago on three papers that have synthesized the results from ancient mtDNA. His text is in French, but the figures are in English and speak for themselves.

Some big studies of ancient DNA are under way, so let's keep our fingers crossed that some Y-DNA comes out of those.

The studies hopefully will open a new chapter on understanding Western European anthropology. I'm pretty excited to see what comes out of those studies. I'm hoping, crossing my fingers, that some R1b will be found at Neolithic sites in Western Europe.

I suppose we are left with either some sort of maritime leap along the Med. to Iberia or some sort of meeting of non-R1b Iberian beaker influences with R1b elements somewhere in central Europe

I agree, except that there's another side of the European peninsula that gets very little attention. The Dover Boat, and various aspects of the tin and amber trades, hint at the use of this other route, by those inclined to maritime leaping. As distinguished from herding and plowing their way across. Whether this was done by DF27 guys, I don't know; but it was done in the time frame under discussion, and not just via the Mediterranean and two or three of the biggest rivers.

Quote

It seems to me that genetics is more likely to solve the beaker origin problem than archaeology.

I kind of agree with that, too... only, if we keep chatting, maybe it can be solved in an interdisciplinary fashion.

I agree, I think we sometimes underestimate the navigational capabilities of the early Europeans. In his book Europe between the Oceans, Barry Cunliffe estimated the first Neolithic settlements out of Anatolia to Crete happened in boats capable of carrying up to 20 tonnes including live stock. Elsewhere it was pointed out that a round trip from the Black Sea to the Pillars of Hercules and back again could be achieved using the favourable currents of the Meditteranean, in the Summer sailing season. Likewise using the rivers a group could travel in light weight boats from The Black Sea to The estuary of the Loire at Morbihan via the Danube ( assuming the could pass hostile tribes at the Iron gates ), Rhine and Loire in a single season. This is a lot faster than the 1Km per year estimate of the Demic diffusion model.

"One of the most valuable aspects of the book, particularly from the perspective of those interested in ships, shipping, shipbuilding and the history of various watercraft, is its detailed description of the discovery and excavation of prehistoric and early historic vessels. Cunliffe presents some of the more recent discoveries that are less commonly described, not just the better-known examples along the coasts of Greece and Turkey. The cross-Channel trade between Britain and continental Europe is documented by several well-preserved wrecks, together with their cargoes, and these have led to a reassessment of the level of technical skill in shipbuilding and seafaring achieved by European populations in this region as early as the Bronze Age."

I agree, I think we sometimes underestimate the navigational capabilities of the early Europeans. In his book Europe between the Oceans, Barry Cunliffe estimated the first Neolithic settlements out of Anatolia to Crete happened in boats capable of carrying up to 20 tonnes including live stock. Elsewhere it was pointed out that a round trip from the Black Sea to the Pillars of Hercules and back again could be achieved using the favourable currents of the Meditteranean, in the Summer sailing season. Likewise using the rivers a group could travel in light weight boats from The Black Sea to The estuary of the Loire at Morbihan via the Danube ( assuming the could pass hostile tribes at the Iron gates ), Rhine and Loire in a single season. This is a lot faster than the 1Km per year estimate of the Demic diffusion model.

Does Cunliffe describe when Scandinavians became excellent at sea travel?

I moved to Munich this weekend and all my "travelling" books are in storage until I find a more permanent place.

I came across this review of "Facing The Ocean: The Atlantic and Its Peoples" by Barry Cunliffe. The Vikings are dealth with in chapter 11 of this book. The Norwegian rock carvings referred to above are also detailed in Europe between the Oceans.

"Now let us address the elephant in the room and that is the latest theory about the Celtic Origins which this book is supposed to have presented. And really, you have to look pretty hard to see it. I’m going to make it easy on you and tell you that it can be found in chapter seven. Cunliffe gives you the short version of it when he is summing up his book in the last chapter and I’m quoting here:

Facing The Ocean: The Atlantic and Its Peoples by Barry Cunliffe“It was, no doubt, during this first cycle of maritime contact that a lingua franca developed allowing travelers by sea to communicate one with another. If, as we might reasonably suppose, the ships were the prerogative of the elite, then the language which evolved over the millennia would have become the language of the elite. In such a situation the disparate languages which might have been spoken before contact intensified would soon have converged to become a similar tongue, understandable throughout the lands of the Atlantic facade. By the first millennium BCE the common language spoken across most of the region was a branch of Indo-European known, since the seventeenth century, as ‘Celtic’ – the language which still survives, though in modified form, in parts of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the Isle of Man, and Brittany.”

Goren Burenhelt in his paper Long distance cultural interaction in Megalithic Europe, compares the Norwegian rock art to the inscriptions in Boyne valley and those of Morbihan and suggests that this is part of the Megalithic exchange networks on the Atlantic Facade.

It was an interesting read. I suspect some of the symbols discussed could be of coincidental design. Like the spirals used in Malta and the spirals at Newgrange.

I have been inside Newgrange and a chambered tomb in Knowlth. I also wandered around the Carromore Megalithic Cemetary. At Carrowmore I remember seeing what looked like an earthwork on a distant mountain.